Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Death of a Humanist: The Manuel Azaña Story - Part 1

Secular News Daily
 

Death of a Humanist: The Manuel Azaña Story – Part 1

Posted: 07 Nov 2010 12:49 PM PST

Winners write history books. That's why Manuel Azaña, whose lonely death occurred exactly 70 years ago last Wednesday, is the greatest humanist you never heard of.

The future President of Spain was born outside of Madrid in 1880. After losing his parents at an early age, Azaña was packed off to be educated by the monks of the Escorial. He detested them. As an adult, he wrote a book called The Garden of the Monks about the anti-intellectual discipline he experienced there. "We learned to refute Kant with five points, and Hegel, and Comte, and so many more. We used to oppose the erroneous assaults with good objections: (1) It is contrary to the teachings of the Church; (2) it leads straight to pantheism; and (3) other puncture-proof reasons." Reducing the supernatural to a series of canned platitudes turned him off: "I have dreamed of destroying all this world," he wrote.

He launched his career as a writer by mocking the Church's obsession with relics in a short story about the medieval Spanish hero El Cid. Bones said to be those of El Cid are examined by a doctor and determined to be those of a horse; the archbishop, unconvinced, concludes instead that El Cid must have been a giant.

Azaña didn't hate Catholics – he married one, and he and his devout wife respected the other's views throughout their years together. As his writing turned more toward politics, though, he found religion contrary to the necessary virtues of a responsible citizenry: "Pure faith is unsociable; it is not useful in the republic, whose sovereignty it neither strengthens nor defends." Catholicism, in which people owe a loyalty to the Pope superseding what they owe the state, was especially problematic.

Azaña's Spain was overwhelmingly Catholic, a fact that can be traced back to the Inquisition established in the 15th century. Though the Inquisition's original purpose was to crack down on Spain's Jews, it proved ideally suited for crushing the outbreak of the Protestant Reformation as well. Hundreds of thousands passed through its torture chambers; as a result, the weakening of the political power of the Catholic Church that occurred in places like England and Germany never happened in Spain. By the dawn of the 19th century the Spanish Church remained every bit as overbearing as it had been 500 years earlier.

This left Spain so out of step with the rest of Europe – and so economically backwards – that a low-level armed conflict between Catholics and humanists persisted through most of the 19th century. Meanwhile, Spain continued to stagnate, ultimately losing the last of its overseas possessions to America in 1898. By 1931, the jig was up; the king decided to abdicate, and Spain belatedly joined the rest of Europe in allowing its people to decide how they wished to be governed.

The people's overwhelming choice, at the first elections in 1931, was to end the tyranny of the Catholic Church. A coalition led by Manuel Azaña's Republican Action Party swept to power, committed to ending taxpayer subsidies for the Church and breaking the Church's stranglehold on education. Azaña became Prime Minister, and the principal drafter of a new constitution for the new Republic.

The constitution Azaña helped produce pointedly refused to recognize Catholicism as the official religion of the state. On the contrary, it infuriated the Church by its explicit toleration of all varieties of religious belief. Control over marriage, cemeteries, and education was transferred from the Church to the civil government, and Church doctrine was further violated by allowing women full rights of citizenship, including the right to divorce. As Azaña put it on the floor of the Cortes: "Spain has ceased to be Catholic."

Only five years earlier, the Church had been strong enough to induce the government to imprison a woman for saying that the Virgin Mary bore other children after the birth of Jesus. Those days were over – at least for a while.

The Church did not take Azaña's victory lying down. Only two weeks after the 1931 election, the Catholic primate was already condemning the triumph of "the enemies of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ." The Catholic press began trumpeting the success of the Fascists in Italy and the Nazis in Germany as models for Spain.

Politics being what it is, the liberal and secularist parties that took control in 1931 squabbled among themselves once in power. In the 1933 elections they were defeated by a right-wing combine, subsidized by Benito Mussolini, that sought to follow in his footsteps. This was not at all what most Spaniards wanted. In October, 1935, Azaña told the largest crowd that had ever assembled in Spain:

All Europe today is a battlefield between democracy and its enemies, and Spain is not an exception. You must choose between democracy, with all its shortcomings, with all its faults, with all its mistakes or errors, and tyranny with all its horrors. … In Spain one hears frivolous and vain talk of dictatorship. We find it repugnant not only by doctrine, but by experience and through good sense … Dictatorship is a consequence or political manifestation of intolerance; its propellant is fanaticism; and its means of action, physical violence. Dictatorship leads to war … it stupefies peoples and drives them mad.

When the next elections were held in February, 1936, the humanist side reunited. Once again it scored a decisive victory, despite the Church's circulation of a catechism declaring it to be a mortal sin to vote for any candidate who supported freedom of religion, the press, or education.

After this defeat, the Catholic side shrewdly gave up on the ballot box. Left to their own devices, Spaniards would never support continued control by God experts. A few months later General Francisco Franco, the recently demoted Army chief of staff, launched an armed rebellion against the people's choice. Franco claimed to be fighting against Communism; in fact, Azaña had excluded all Communists and even Socialists from his government, even though they had contributed to his coalition's success.

Ironically, Azaña had devoted much of his energy during his first term in office to modernizing and strengthening the army, and that new-found efficiency was now being used against him. With most of the army on his side, Franco could have swept into power quickly. But speed was not Franco's intent. He sought not a coup, but a permanent revolution, in which the forces of humanism would be crippled beyond hope of recovery. As he wrote to a friendly diplomat:

I will occupy Spain town by town, village by village, railway by railway … Nothing will make me abandon this gradual program. It will bring me less glory but greater internal peace. That being the case, this civil war could still last another year, two, perhaps three. Dear ambassador, I can assure you that I am not interested in territory but in inhabitants. The reconquest of the territory is the means, the redemption of the inhabitants the end. I cannot shorten the war by even one day … It could even be dangerous for me to reach Madrid with a stylish military operation. I will take the capital not an hour before it is necessary: first I must have the certainty of being able to found a regime.

One of Franco's colleagues, General Mola, spoke of the important role terrorism must play in the Catholic campaign: "It is necessary to spread terror. We have to create the impression of mastery, eliminating without scruples or hesitation all those who do not think as we do. There can be no cowardice. If we vacillate one moment and fail to proceed with the greatest determination, we will not win."

General Queipo de Llano spread his own brand of terrorism on radio broadcasts: "Our brave Legionaries … have shown the Red cowards what it means to be a man. And, incidentally, the wives of the Reds, too. These Communist and Anarchist women, after all, have made themselves fair game by their doctrine of free love. And now they have at least made the acquaintance of real men, and not milksops of militiamen. Kicking their legs about and struggling won't save them."

Next week: How Azaña tried and failed to save Spain and democracy at the same time.

No related posts.


European Christians more likely to accept evolution

 

Silicon Valley Couple Offers $500,000 Challenge Grant for Secular Coalition

Posted: 08 Nov 2010 02:18 PM PST

The Secular Coalition for America today announced a matching gift challenge of up to $500,000 from philanthropists Jeff Hawkins and Janet Strauss. Jeff is the mobile computing entrepreneur who invented the PalmPilot and the Treo, and is now known for his work in brain theory at Numenta Inc., a company he co-founded in 2005.

“Our government was founded on the principles of separation of church and state,” said Jeff. “It is vital to protect those principles for the benefit of all Americans.” Added Janet, “We hope to attract new donors and raise major gifts, so that the Secular Coalition for America will become an even more vital and effective voice in our country.”

“This challenge grant from Janet and Jeff will spark innovation in our movement, empowering Secular Coalition for America to vigorously execute “Our Secular Decade” strategic plan. We intend to create a secular coalition affiliate in every state, each advocating for the secular government as the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, intended,” said Sean Faircloth, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America.

“We’re excited about the first challenge grant and the opportunity to expand our lobbying and coalition-building efforts. This is a true leadership gift, one we hope will be followed by others,” said Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America. “This challenge grant gives people an opportunity to double their contribution to our movement.”

Go to http://donate.secular.org or contact Caroline Slobodzian, development manager, to donate a Society gift of $10,000 or more. For each new (or upgraded) Society gift to Secular Coalition for America, Jeff and Janet will match dollar for dollar to the Secular Coalition for America Education Fund. Those who already participate at the Secular Society level can upgrade to a higher Society and their gift will be matched as well.

For more information, contact
Caroline Slobodzian
Development Manager, Secular Coalition for America
202-299-1091
caroline@secular.org

Related articles:

  1. Jeff Hawkins, Entrepreneur and Inventor, Joins Secular Coalition for America Advisory Board
  2. Secular Coalition for America Disappointed by Kagan’s Weak Views on Church-State Separation
  3. Corporal Punishment Ban Praised by Secular Coalition for America


European Christians more likely to accept evolution

Posted: 08 Nov 2010 08:30 AM PST

According to a new survey, conducted over the internet, Christians in Europe are more likely than Christians in other parts of the world to accept evolution. What’s more, Christians the world over were much more likely than atheists to say that they were absolutely certain in their beliefs about evolution and how the universe came to be.

The survey was run by David Wilson at the University of Newcastle in Australia. Over 4,300 people took part, recruited basically by word of mouth as well as some adverts. The survey was very quick – just one question about acceptance of evolution, then a few questions on faith and why they hold the beliefs they do.

Click for a larger version



The figure summarizes the key findings (you’ll need to click on it for a larger version). Basically, the bar charts show how the percentage of different groups who say they are absolutely certain of their beliefs in evolution (atheist, black; Christian, red; agnostic, cyan; other, grey). The pie charts show the beliefs of Christians – dark blue is creationist, light blue evolution, and yellow is “theistic” evolution.

Most Christians surveyed were creationist – except in Europe. Although Christians there were just as convinced of the correctness of their beliefs!

Wilson reckons that European Christians might be educated differently, or have a different cultural background. He also suggests that European Institutions which have come out firmly against creationism, like the Council of Europe and the European Parliament, may have had some influence.

I dunno. Looking at the survey, it picked up loads more atheists in Europe. Maybe the survey just circulated in different circles in Europe.

Anyway, another interesting finding of this survey is that it asked Christians why they didn’t believe in evolution. The most popular reason was the Genesis should be interpreted literally. The next was that it undermines the belief that humans were created in God’s image.

Only then, in third and fourth place do we get to the two ‘evidence-based options’ – that there is no evidence of evolution of one species into another (50% of responses) and there is no evidence for natural selection (40%).

So the primary objection these Christians had to evolution is not evidential, but dogmatic.

In contrast, when atheists were asked why they didn’t believe in God, their overwhelming response (given by 85%) was that there is no evidence!


Wilson, D. (2010). European Christians are at the forefront in accepting evolution: results from an internet-based survey Evolution & Development, 12 (6), 537-540 DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00439.x

Creative Commons License This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.

Related articles:

  1. Science can't prove that! How rejecting evolution leads to rejecting science
  2. In Brief: Religious accommodationism at Evolution 2010
  3. Do people reject evolution because it unnerves them?


And no Heaven: 11/8/2010 Atheist Cartoon

Posted: 08 Nov 2010 08:26 AM PST

More Paperwork: 11/7/2010 Atheist Cartoon

Posted: 07 Nov 2010 07:08 PM PST

Secular Sri Lanka Post News Headlines

Secular News Daily